southerncross

oh ok, lets not even consider every place in the universe is completely seperate yet every place is the same place, a different place being different because it's at a different time. And what is laughable is the only alternative you lot have ever come back with, wormholes in space. Supernatural baloney, I may not be right but at least it is more feasible than wormholes. You cannot occupy the same space as another space maybe because you cannot also occupy the same time. Points are not connected by 4th dimension wormholes, there is no connection but there may be exclusionary boundaries. If you draw a wave you create places in the crests and troughs. If time is a wave it creates places in the crests and troughs. AKA space. And if the places are all the same perfect nothing then the places are all the same place. I only ever came here to ask if there was a scientific reason why not and what alternative there is, i have my answer.

Before there was time=nothing. (note:there may not have been before time) One place and one moment is nothing=here and now. Time is a wave and in all the crests and troughs of this wave are this one place and one moment. The one place and the one moment are seperated in the wave by distance and time from the next one place and one time but they still are all the one place and one time. One place and one time can be different in motion such as velocity, direction, rotation and spin but they still are all the one place and one time. A loop in time, like a bubble in water, well you either see where I am going or you don't. Nothing does not have to come from anywhere, the logic that the universe came from everything leaves the question where did everything come from? If your arguement is not every point in the universe comes from nothing and is the same point acting seperately in time, then you have to have some proof because this is a more logical arguement.

I don’t have all the answers but it seems to make sense that nothing is the only alternative to a supernatural answer for what the universe is made of. I can except that time alone is a natural occurrence “that just is”, that it moves as a wave and that the area (of nothing) within the bell curves of this wave is space. To marry the quantum and the classical world, if I may be so bold, what I suggest is an incredibly simple idea that all moments are the same moment (now) in time and all places are the same place (here) in space, of and in the individual bell curves of space/time. The struggle to understand I believe comes from our language, perspective/existence within the crests and troughs (loops of energy/matter?) of the time-wave, is the same moment and place at different times. Consider I am saying there is only one moment at different times, a failure of language not logic. Every point, empty space, physical matter or physiological cognition is the exact same point but with an individual existence/perspective. The individuals are moving, interacting, combining, experiencing as separate entities but they all are the same point.

I hope you have satisfied your need to feel justified now, the topic a year on is at the top of the page.

I have never had religious or supernatural beleifs poetic or otherwise, I have no idea what your talking about saviour was crucified and nails, check your facts that was not me. Points on opposite sides of the universe are connected, this is not mysticism, it is all to easy to dimiss what you don't understand. inow you have put up very little if any arguements ever to me, your not being helpfull.

Sure, it may require you change your story completely though. By using the memory of the past subject you live life as that person, sensing all that they sense and thinking all that they think. You do this for a relatively short time remembering the experience when you stop meditating or when you wake or however your story goes. In this way you experience another time without the need to travel through time via a machine. The story could go any way you want, as in you don't know youself while you are the past subject, which seems more real than the alternative, you become the subject in the past. The story could be more focused on the present and the change you have after the experience of past subjects lives. Hope this was food for thought.

Nothing by itself is nothing. Nothing at one moment and nothing at the next moment in time are still nothing but now nothing is relative to something existing elsewhere. When there is time there is space, and where there is a next moment in time there is next space. This would mean every point in the universe is the same point , they act independantly because every frame of reference that we consider a point is HERE/NOW relative to that point. (i.e. the only fundamental point is nothingness) So is it possible that time makes space, that space makes energy, that energy makes matter and matter makes you and me? Every point is HERE/NOW, there is no past and future apart from a memory or a wish. Every space is the same space (here) Every moment is the same moment (now) To exist in space/time, you must be relative to one of the here/now points that make it up. (a place/moment we call here/now in space/time, space being all the places and time being all the moments) You are here/now (nothingness), all other points are existing independantly eleswhere even though they also are you. Looking at the universe this way will give you greater insights to science I am sure.

Where is here and when is now, is it not the relationship between points of space-time that have any meaning? Am I not only -here and now- in relation to other points? That is it is not possible to be here and now without a relationship, without being relative to some other here and now. The question is what is the difference between one here and now and another here and now? 3333333 3222223 3211123 3210123 3211123 3222223 3333333 0 is the place holder for here and now and space and time exist only in the relationship with other points. The universe is in total balance, 3 is three places from 0 just as 0 is three places from 3. Relative to all points those points are all here and now. 0000000 0000000 0000000 0000000 0000000 0000000 0000000 Which is just 0 when you are not being relative to a particular point. Space is only the relationship between different, yet in balance, points of time. GRAVITY? Upset this balance 3333333 3222223 3211123 321012X 3211123 3222223 3333333 By blocking the expansions from 0 with matter X would you not get gravity? Nothing by itself is nothing but is nothing having a relationship with itself at different moments (moments in balance with one another) giving space and time a reality? QUANTUM? If there is an observer, would that observation not reset 0 at the point of observation? NOTHING? Is this not just a place holder for something? That is doesn’t here and now (space and time) not even exist except in the relationship. Crazy crazy stuff, nails go in each hand and one big one through both feet.

So zero for time is the place holder for now? And is zero for space the place holder for here? i.e. Here and Now in space-time is the relative zero point FOR every point? Like this: <...00000000000000000...> the universe. But relative to any particular point in this universe zero is the only here and now like this: <...54321012345...> Relative to the universe: This <...00000000000...> = just 0, in different ways it is both everything and nothing. i.e. Relative to a particular point it is the only here and now in time-space and relative to the universe it is every here and now in space-time(Every point being just 0 and just a place holder for particular points), the truth and the reality may be that both are correct depending on the relative perception. So speculating but in keeping with the above: Every point may be a meaningless zero point of here and now, a moment without time and a point without space. (would this be a definition for nothing, is nothing simply a place holder for something??) i.e. A moment without time: the zero point by itself, a place holder for time to start but which has yet to start-NOW. A point without space: again a zero point by itself, a place where space would start but has yet to start-HERE. Could it be that the relationship that is between 0 and 1... in both space and time cases is what creates our preception of space-time? So zero for time is the place holder for now? And is zero for space the place holder for here?

YT 2095 You said, “Zero is only a place holder”, not to be confused with the absence of anything. So zero is the place holder in space and time, a point is nowhere by itself, it needs to be somewhere in relation to another point. A point by itself cannot say it is HERE as this has no meaning, for HERE to have meaning there would have to be a THERE to be the place holder so you could say HERE is distance X from THERE. If you drew a number line with only the zero marked on it, it would still give more information than a number line with only a One marked on it. Zero would at least be a starting point where the One by itself would be meaningless. This thought seems only to address space so I was thinking the zero place holder for the time part of space-time would have to be the NOW. So is zero, in regards to space-time, a HERE and NOW point, which is a meaningless point without a THERE and THEN point to be relative to? Is HERE at zero and is NOW at zero, is HERE a place or just a place holder and is NOW a moment or just a moment holder? Is HERE and NOW by itself nothing? P.S. Thanks for all the other great responses and the interesting definitions, I wonder if Mr Skeptics circular argument stands when the NOTHING in question is strictly to do with space-time.

Hi hobz Very much what I was thinking, "nothing-space" that is. I may have changed my mind. I have learnt a lesson hear at SFN, that is there should be a reason why you believe something or you are just guessing and for some personal reason you are choosing to believe that guess is a fact. That said a best guess with supporting reasons is a good place to start any investigation. I would think these are all the options 1. Nothing does not exist 2. Nothing does exist 3. Nothing does not exist but something can be totally indiscernible 4. Nothing is a flawed concept I choose 3. Mainly because something would include both space and time and they seem inseparable. If you can divide any moment infinitely then you should be able divide any space infinitely. Nothing may have never existed it may only approach zero without ever reaching it. This is my best guess.

Hi again elas. We can see an image of the past? Do you mean a photo or drawing that really exists in the present? Because you then go on to say "the time at the point where the image was created is 'now' the same instant that the observer is experiencing." I am just saying that the image is not the actual thing. Also; and i am guilty of this as well, you are stating that time is infinite but the fact is we don't really know if infinity exists at all. THE UNIVERSE COMES FROM NOWHERE? (I should have included the question mark) >Hangs Head In Shame< I don't think i will continue with this thread but I will continue posting so thanks, lesson learned, I hope.

Nowhere remains nowhere. SPACETIME Imagine a time line of infinitely divisible moments, match each of theses moments with a line of infinitely divisible physical points. Merge the lines together into a single line of space-time. RELATIVE TO Every imaginable point is at the present moment and is at zero along the line. To the left are moments in space and to the right is moments in space relative to every zero point of space-time. (Zero is the same moment even if infinitely divided but space is indiscernible as it is reduced by infinite divisions) If I am one point and you are another we are at different places and at different moments but we are both at zero relative to ourselves and we both experience the present along the same space-time line. QUANTUM <00000000000000000000000000000> MACRO <9876543210123456789> Don't ask me to prove it, it is a speculation but do try and falsify it.

DEFINITION: Nothing in 3 dimensions is space. Nothing without dimensions is nowhere, it is not of a place. You could not have a vacume without a place to have it no matter how intense. Space is really space-time, the two cannot be seperated, space has to exist in a moment and a moment has to be relative to somewhere. I am only speculating here, if there was only one moment would there only be one space, i mean if there was no next moment and space-time cannot be seperated, then there would be no next space.

Ok back to conservation of energy: It said in wiki: If the zero point field energy density decreases as the volume of the universe expands. I took the "IF" as not knowing if the fabric of space becomes less dense as it expands. If it is not getting less dense then as the universe expands then more energy is still coming from its original source. From somewhere else? A doorway from some other place opens for an arbitrary moment and an arbitrary amount of energy is sent through then the doorway closes. This creates an arbitrary sized place that expands and becomes less dense over time. Or A doorway opens from somewhere else and stays open letting energy pour in creating space in equilibrium with energy. Any thoughts?